Wednesday, July 30, 2014

The legal mind

It's as crazy as many outlets -- not Reuters, they tend to have a legal perspective others lack -- reporting on oil today.

I haven't read the verdict.

I do know the law and I know courts.

I find it very hard to believe that a 'win' took place today.

A lower court doesn't deliver wins of that sort.

Most likely, the judge ordered the disputed oil held, not handed to anyone.

But I'm seeing 'reports' that Nouri has 'won' and that a judge has given him the oil off the coast of Texas.

And done so based on something other than a full hearing?

No, the judge has most likely stated the property is in dispute and
can't be sold until ownership is determined. But the judge appears to
have jumped the gun by ruling before the ship was in US jurisdiction.
Try that, as a human being, getting a ruling on something that has yet
to happen and is outside a court's jurisdiction. If only the courts
served the people as well as they do big oil.

A few hours later?

The judge basically tosses her own ruling while noting she lacks jurisdiction to rule.

I told C.I. she needed to expand on that and give credit to herself in the snapshot but she said 'no,' so I'm noting it here.

It's never wise to disagree with C.I. on points of the law, she's generally a very astute legal mind.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, the State Dept
seems confused over weapons, the State Dept seems confused over the law,
the State Dept seems confused over its mission, Nouri keeps killing
civilians, and much more.

John Kerry does grasp that in the October 2011, the US mission in Iraq
was handed off from the Defense Dept to the State Dept, right?

Of course he does.

He was the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when that
happened. As such, he and his committee provided direct oversight -- or
were supposed to -- of the State Dept.

He is fully aware that the State Dept, since 2011, has received billions of US tax dollars to spend in Iraq.

So if he wants to stomp his feet on Ukraine or on Syria or whatever
catches his cat's fancy for this or that 30-second period, when exactly
does John plan to focus on Iraq.

Again, the US mission in Iraq is under the State Dept. That hand off
took place nearly three years ago and while Hillary Clinton was
Secretary of State at that time, as Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Chair, John Kerry was following what was happening.

And he should be following how the department he heads moves further and further away from a diplomatic mission in Iraq. Dan Lamothe (Washington Post) reports on the continued decay of the US State Dept:

The State Department has approved the possible sale of 5,000 AGM-114K/N/R missiles and related parts and training, Pentagon officials said. The estimated cost of the deal would be about $700 million, and dwarf previous shipments of Hellfire missiles to Iraq.

Diplomacy is apparently dead -- as is compliance with the law and common sense.

The law prohibits the US government from supplying weapons to any government that terrorizes their own people.

A source at Fallujah General Hospital said on Tuesday that the number of
martyrs among civilians since the outbreak of the crisis by more than 7
months reached 672 martyrs, 17 percent of them are children and 19
percent of them women, while the total number of wounded civilians, 2174
wounded, 19 percent children and 21 percent women..

The source
told the National Iraqi News Agency / NINA / that This is not the final
outcome, noting that there were martyrs were buried without going back
to the hospital, and wounded were treated at health centers close to
their places.

The airstrikes on Monday reflected that
policy. It is not clear how many among the dead were militants, but
local media reported at least one child was killed. Human rights groups
have begun to criticize the Iraqi government for bombing civilian areas
in its campaign against insurgents.

Human
Rights Watch last week said it documented at least 75 civilians killed
and hundreds wounded in government airstrikes—at times using the crude
improvised explosives known as barrel bombs—on the cities of Fallujah,
Beiji, Mosul, and Tikrit since June 6.

So the law -- including the Leahy Amendment -- is being violated by the White House.

Common sense?

Dropping back to the July 23rd snapshot for this from that day's House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing:

US House Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: Last month, Secretary [of
State John] Kerry said nobody expected ISIL to capture Mosul. Even if
our foreign military assistance had not quite kicked in yet, shouldn't
our information and intelligence gathering efforts have been able to
get a better assessment, a more accurate assessment, of Samarra and
Mosul? And it has been widely reported that while taking control of
Mosul, ISIL seized rather large quantities of US supplied foreign
military assistance and made off with nearly half a billion dollars from
the local banks -- in addition to tanks and humvees that were taken.
US officials were quick to deny the claims of ISIL-- that they captured
advance weaponry such as Black Hawk helicopters. Did they capture any
caravan aircraft with advanced weapon platforms? And did they take any
other advanced weaponry like MPADS [Man-portable air-defense systems]?
US military equipment and hundreds of millions of dollars aren't the
only items that ISIL has seized. The Iraqi government confirmed that
ISIL took uranium from Mosul University. What is the status of that
uranium? What could ISIL use that for?

Common sense dictates that when you're losing uranium, weapons, millions
of dollars, you're really not the person to supply with more weapons.

But there's not much common sense in the US government.

The issue of the missiles was raised today in the Pentagon briefing by spokesperson Rear Adm John Kirby. Excerpt.

Q: Hellfires for Iraq, the secure -- Defense Security Cooperative
Agency today notified Congress of a potential sale of up to 5,000
Hellfires. It's 10 times more than you've said before. Any sense of how
soon that (OFF-MIC) if Congress approves it, how soon could 5,000
Hellfires be sent to Iraq? And do they even have the capacity to absorb
those weapons and effectively use them, since they only have two Cessna
planes firing them off?REAR ADM. KIRBY: I don't have -- I can't give you an assessment now
of how fast they would get there. My -- if past is prologue, the
shipment would probably be done in tranches, rather than in a whole -- a
whole shipment. But, again, I don't want to get ahead of a process
that's just now starting on the Hill.But I can give you a short update, if you want. I mean, as of the
28th -- so that's, what, two days ago -- was that yesterday? What's
today, 29th? Sorry, yesterday. Total of 466 Hellfire missiles have been
delivered in July, just this month. Since January, we've delivered 780,
and there's another 366 that are going to be delivered over the course
of August.So, I mean, we're -- the process of providing these Hellfire missiles
continues. Again, I -- that's what we're doing now, and that I can -- I
just -- I wouldn't -- couldn't speculate about exactly how the 5,000
would get there. Does that help?Q: That does, yeah.Q: Just to follow up on that, is there any update on the
recommendations on how to deal with Iraq? The Iraqi ambassador yesterday
was saying the U.S. is dragging its feet on this, and General Dempsey
seems to be suggesting that the sense of urgency has kind of dissipated.
Is the sense of urgency gone on dealing with this issue?REAR ADM. KIRBY: I haven't seen General Dempsey's comments about
that. I don't -- so I wouldn't speak to that. I -- as I've said before, I
think everybody shares the proper sense of urgency here about the
situation in Iraq. There's no question about that.The assessments are in. They are still being reviewed. I have nothing
new to announce on that. And at -- if we get to a point where these
assessments allow us to make recommendations to the interagency and to
the president about a way forward, then we'll do that. And from those
recommendations may or may not flow decisions and then -- and then we'll
go from there.But, I mean, the assessments are still in the review process right
now. But I would also remind you, Dion, I mean, this notion that we've
done nothing is just false. We have 715 Americans, troops on the ground
in Iraq defending our property and our people, and also providing
assistance -- security assistance and some advice through those joint
operations centers, the one up in Erbil and the one in Baghdad.And, oh, by the way, we're still flying an intensified program of
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance flights, manned and
unmanned, over the country, information from which is being shared with
Iraqi security forces as appropriate.So we're -- and Iraq still is the benefactor of one of the highest
foreign military sales programs that we have with any country. So I -- I
take deep issue with this notion that the United States and the United
States military in particular is not moving fast enough or doing enough.But ultimately -- and we've said this in the past, as well -- this is
a fight the Iraqi security forces have got to make. It's their country.
It's a threat to their people. And we've made it clear that we're
willing to work towards helping them, but ultimately this is -- this is
their fight.Q: I just think people looking from the outside seeing the Islamic
State blowing up mosques, solidifying their holds, and hearing you say
we're reviewing, we're assessing, we may come up with recommendations
that may lead to something suggests that the sense of urgency is gone.REAR ADM. KIRBY: No, I would just -- I just absolutely disagree. I
don't think that there's been any lapse of sense of urgency here.But, again, this is -- this has got to be a problem that the Iraqi
government solves with the Iraqi security forces. And what's critical to
this in the long run and what has given ISIL, let's not forget, the
momentum that it's gained is the lack of an inclusive,
multi-confessional, political process inside Iraq, and that is not
something that the United States military can fix. There's not going to
be a U.S. military solution here. It's just not going to happen.Q: Is this just a bureaucratic holdup? Because it's taking longer now
to review the assessment than it did to actually produce the
assessment.REAR ADM. KIRBY: No, it hasn't. It has not. I mean, the assessment
teams took about three weeks to come back with assessments. We've had
the assessments for a little over a week.Q: (OFF-MIC) more than two.Q: Two weeks, I think (OFF-MIC)REAR ADM. KIRBY: OK, thank you. That's still more than a week. Look,
again, they're being reviewed. And I'm not going to get ahead of
decisions that haven't been made yet or recommendations that haven't
been formed yet.Q: But, Admiral, is it fair to say that because the Sunni extremists
advance has not continued on to Baghdad that this department and the
government -- the U.S. government in general thinks that there is more
time to make a recommendation, to wait for the Iraqi government to form a
unity government, as you said? The fact that they're not marching on
Baghdad, has that -- that given you more time in your perspective?REAR ADM. KIRBY: No, the question would imply that -- that we're sort
of -- we're dithering on the decision-making process here based on
events on the ground. And we're certainly watching and monitoring events
on the ground, but it's not having an impact on the work that's being
done here in that regard.So, no, I wouldn't tie the work of the review of the assessments to
specifically to the situation on the ground. It's a very fluid
situation. It can be radically different tomorrow than it is today.I said it before, so I'll say it again. It's more important to get
this right to offer the right recommendations forward for the
interagency and the president to make than it is to do it quickly. And
this is ultimately an issue that the Iraqi government has to stand up to
and that the Iraqi security forces have to face.Q: Regardless of when you start the clock, we are several weeks into
this Iraq crisis. And the word from the president at the beginning was,
this department would accelerate its military assistance to Iraq. Other
than the Hellfires that Tony asked about, looking back, what other
assistance was accelerated in terms of weapons or supplies?REAR ADM. KIRBY: We accelerated -- I mean, there was other -- I mean,
there -- two and three quarter-inch rockets, almost 20,000 of them have
been delivered to the government of Iraq. We've also provided thousands
of tanks, tank and small-arms ammunition, thousands of machine guns,
grenades, flairs, sniper rifles, M16 and M4s. So...Q: (OFF-MIC) or is this (OFF-MIC)REAR ADM. KIRBY: No, this is just in total.Q: (OFF-MIC) total?REAR ADM. KIRBY: This is in total.Q: And the word was we're going to -- the United States will step up
its assistance after the fall of Mosul. What since that point has
accelerated...REAR ADM. KIRBY: Well, I just when through it with the Hellfires,
which is -- which is the weapon most in demand by the Iraqi security
forces. And then, you know, back to Dion's question, we've -- we've
intensified ISR over the country. And that's -- that's still staying at a
pretty high level. Roughly -- I think it's still roughly around 50
flights per day, manned and unmanned.We put an aircraft carrier in the Arabian Gulf, where she remains, as
well as escort ships. We flew in 700 -- more than 700 troops to provide
both security assistance for our people and our property there, as well
as to provide these assessments.I mean, I can go through the litany all over again, but we have
certainly intensified our efforts and our attention level on Iraq since
ISIL took Mosul. But, again, it -- the Iraqi government had an
opportunity in 2011, when -- when all U.S. forces left, and -- and I
remind you what we said back then, that we -- that we believe that --
that the Iraqi security forces were competent and capable to the threat
that they were facing in 2011.There was an opportunity given to the -- to the Iraqi government in
2011 that they haven't taken full advantage of, the way they organized,
manned, trained and equipped their army. And we've seen some of those
units fold under pressure because of either lack of will or lack of
leadership, not all of them, and we're seeing some -- we're seeing them
stiffen themselves, continue to stiffen themselves around Baghdad.
They're retaking some territory, and they've maintained control over
others they've retaken, like the oil refinery and the Haditha Dam.But ultimately, this is an Iraqi issue to deal with. And the -- and
the -- and as we indicated in 2011, the -- and I could -- I wish I had
the text for you. I quoted it from our report to Congress back then. But
paraphrasing it, the best chance we said back then, the best chance to
decrease violence in Iraq was through an inclusive political process,
not through the largest army in the Middle East or X number of tanks or X
number of F-16s, but through an inclusive political process. That was
the best chance to decrease violence in Iraq, and that hasn't -- that --
that opportunity they've been -- they were given in 2011 has not been
taken advantage of.

Human rights matter to the State Dept, right?

When they're not pushing for Nouri to get more Hellfire missiles, they're focusing on human rights, right?

QUESTION: The Kurdish oil tanker?MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: You were right yesterday. I was incorrect.
MS. PSAKI: That may be Lesley’s question, too. Okay.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: So thank you for setting us straight yesterday.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: What you said was what was happening, it’s still
there. Now that a judge has ruled that that oil should be seized, what
happens now and whose responsibility is it in terms of the U.S.
Government?
MS. PSAKI: So the Government of Iraq, we understand, has filed
suit – they filed suit yesterday in a Texas court against the cargo
onboard the tanker. It remains anchored outside of U.S. jurisdiction off
the coast of Texas. So the current – because of the current location,
the government – the preliminary measure is – the measure that was done
to seize the cargo was done in case the cargo enters into U.S.
jurisdiction. It has not yet entered into U.S. jurisdiction, and once –
our understanding is that if the oil enters into U.S. jurisdiction, the
court order against the cargo could be enforced. But at this point in
time, it remains – the cargo remains on the ship, which is outside of
jurisdiction.
QUESTION: Have you been in communication with the people running this
ship about their intentions and what you would like to see them do?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think our policy remains the same. There’s
obviously a legal case here, and given that, we certainly recommend that
the parties make their own decisions with advice from their counsels.
There’s a legal case. Our policy position remains the same, which is
that we believe that oil should be transferred through the central
government of Iraq. But again, this is a case where because it’s not in
our jurisdiction, there’s little we can do at this point in time.
QUESTION: But apart from the legal case, if that was not there, would
you have a problem with this oil being offloaded, being sold?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think --
QUESTION: I mean, is there some kind of a legal restriction
apart from this current case? Is there – does the U.S. policy include
some – a ban on Kurdish oil coming into the U.S. unless it comes through
--
MS. PSAKI: I’m – I’d have to check, Matt, but our policy position you’re very familiar with.
QUESTION: Right. But I mean, but it’s not prohibited by the U.S., is it?
MS. PSAKI: Well, but it’s U.S. policy that we’d oppose the selling of outside of the central government of Iraq.
QUESTION: Well, but you can oppose a lot of things that are not illegal, right?
MS. PSAKI: I’m sure we can, but it doesn’t mean that we’d participate in it or support it.
QUESTION: No, I’m just wondering if the – if policy includes a ban on the transfer or sale of Kurdish oil outside --
MS. PSAKI: I will check and see if there’s a legal ban. I can just do about one or two more here.

Poor Jen, poor silly Jen.

She felt a little cocky because of a poor court ruling -- one that lacked jurisdiction.

Washington DC (July 29, 2014)
– The Senate today confirmed Bob McDonald, former head of Procter and
Gamble and West Point graduate, as the new Secretary of the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA). Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
(IAVA), the largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization representing
post-9/11 veterans and their families, welcomes McDonald. IAVA CEO and Founder Paul Rieckhoff released the following statement:“IAVA
applauds the Senate for quickly confirming Bob McDonald to head the VA.
We believe this new change in leadership is the first step in restoring
confidence in the VA. McDonald has a great challenge ahead of him – to
rebuild faith in a health care system accused of wrongdoing and
corruption nationwide. This will not be an easy task, but we stand ready
to help him. We urge McDonald to meet with IAVA leadership and
implement recommendations from IAVA’s eight-point “Marshall Plan” for veterans.”Rieckhoff continued: “This is a critical time for veterans. We are losing 22 veterans a day to suicide, and in our latest Member Survey,
we found that 40 percent of respondents knew another post-9/11 veteran
who died by suicide. Post-9/11 veteran unemployment continues to be
higher than the national average. And the VA claims backlog still stands
at over 260,000 as the appeals backlog grows by the week. Combating
suicide and improving access to mental health care should be one of
McDonald’s first priorities upon taking command of VA. McDonald must be
tenacious in addressing these issues and fixing a culture of systemic
misconduct at VA offices and hospitals. Our veterans deserve better care
and McDonald must rise to the occasion.”Note to media: to arrange an interview with IAVA leadership, please email press@iava.org or call 212-982-9699. Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (www.IAVA.org)
is the nation's first and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization
representing veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan and has more than 270,000
Member Veterans and civilian supporters nationwide. Celebrating its
tenth year, IAVA recently received the highest rating - four-stars -
from Charity Navigator, America's largest charity evaluator.